In a perfect world where abused women had complete confidence in a police force with the time, skills and resources to thoroughly, sympathetically and anonymously investigate every complaint and no media company was motivated by a desire to sell newspapers or attract viewers, that might be true.

We don't live in such a world. So enabling the stories of possible victims to be told and evaluated through the work of investigative journalists who have been given the time and resources to investigate can be seen as a responsible compromise. If it throws up evidence that causes the police to investigate so much the better.

I remain convinced that no media company would risk publishing this kind of story unless they were totally sure the evidence was there to support it.

Never forget what happened with the "grooming gang" stories. Some here were full of praise for the newspapers who were headlining them, and indeed for Yaxley-Lennon's videos, but scornful of the police. Can you see the hypocrisy and double standards being employed? Especially when the police were investigating and resented the stories because they resulted in them having to divert resources. Nevertheless, these stories did ensure more attention was given and the police were criticised, somewhat unfairly in my own opinion given their under-resourcing. I criticised some of the stories, not because they were highlighting criminal behaviour but because of the way the tabloids spun them.

There is no such spinning involved here.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Kevin Spacey has not sued for defamation, as far as I am aware.

Will he? If so would he succeed? He was cleared of the charges against him which required he be proven guilty beyond any reasonable doubt.

Proving defamation requires another standard of proof. If he is unsure would he risk it? Best let it lie!

If Brand is so certain everything that was done was consensual and that the hard evidence of texts and videos can be explained then he has a golden opportunity to profit. We will see.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

The Judge would soon put an end to any such possibility in the minds of the jury. Who are the only ones who matter.

Whatever the Court of Public Opinion has previously decided is irrelevant to the outcome of a court case. Should he be found not guilty his reputation would quickly be restored and that of the media making the claims ruined.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

That's the benefit of an open mind.

An action which allowed future suffering for an unknown number of children over the course of several years.

You seem very confused about this.

There is lots of evidence. Some of it is hearsay but of a type by which patterns can be established and the probability of truth being established. There is also hard evidence by way of text messages, recorded phone calls and videos.

Whether and when this moves to a legal process seems to me to be only a matter of time. You don't turn up and publish this kind of evidence without being sure it can be substantiated.

How news editors decide to treat it is a matter for them. You are free to disagree with their judgement but don't have their job at the moment.

I don't support trial by media. I want to see due process being followed, the claims and defence tested and justice done.

That it needed a piece of investigative journalism to bring that about might be regrettable but it's a reflection of the world we live in.

To conflate my view over Covid with this is ridiculous. I have no problem with people wanting to criticise past Government policy if they wish to. I just think it's a pointless waste of time and effort and the only place we can actually learn useful lessons is via an objective analysis such as the current enquiry is intended to facilitate.

If Brand is destroyed by this then it will only be because he brought it upon himself. If he has a believable defence he is free to make it. I am quite sure it would be given every opportunity. Especially if and when it reaches a court where should be acquitted, he would emerge with an enhanced reputation.

Brand has nothing to fear but himself.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.